Posted on 10/30/2020 6:50:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What should we think when every single Democrat voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett? What does this say about their convictions and ideology?
There were actually three Democrats who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2017 (Donnelly, Heitkamp, and Manchin). Even Brett Kavanaugh received one Democratic vote in 2018 (again, Manchin).
But when it came to Barrett, not one Democrat voted for her. Not one.
This happened despite her receiving a “‘Well Qualified’ rating from the American Bar Association (ABA) whose representatives relayed descriptions of her as ‘brilliant’ and an ‘intellectual giant.’”
And this happened despite there being no allegations of sexual impropriety to dog her, as with the attacks on Kavanaugh.
No, this was a simple rejection of Barrett as a conservative jurist who might one day vote to overturn Roe. v. Wade. For some, this was a simple rejection of a God-fearing, devout Catholic serving on the highest court in the land. Danger!
The senators should know that, when the president and Senate are of the same party, they have consistently voted to appoint new Supreme Court justices during election years. So, this was hardly an unprecedented move.
And, while some senators might honestly believe that Barrett would vote to deprive millions of Americans of healthcare, I would dare say that, for others, this was simply a political talking point.
No, the stark reality is that, on this historic day, when a highly-qualified woman was appointed to take the place of the iconic Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not a single Democrat could be found to vote for her.
Let the record be remembered for posterity.
Gone are the days when someone like Justice Ginsburg could be confirmed by a vote of 96-3. Or Justice Antonin Scalia by a vote of 98-0. Obviously, there was much more bipartisanship on both sides in the past.
But, reviewing the voting of the last 40 years, it’s clear that it is the Democrats who have dug in their heels against conservative justices rather than Republicans doing the same with liberals. (I’m talking about actual votes, not refusing to nominate a new judge during a divided election year.)
During the Reagan years, Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed 99-0, William H. Rehnquist was confirmed 65-33, and Anthony M. Kennedy 97-0.
As for Robert Bork, he was infamously rejected (“borked,” to be precise), by a vote of 42-58. (As Frank Turek recently pointed out, had Bork, not Kennedy, been appointed to the court, Roe v. Wade might have been overturned in 1992.)
Under George H. W. Bush, David H. Souter was confirmed 90-9 while Clarence H. Thomas, after a tumultuous hearing, barely made it by a vote of 52-48. The pattern is crystal clear.
Both of Bill Clinton’s nominees were confirmed with ease. Ginsburg, as mentioned, by a vote of 96-3 (despite being famously progressive) and Stephen G. Breyer by a vote of 87-9.
Under George W. Bush, John G. Roberts was confirmed 78-22 while the more conservative Samuel Alito had a much tougher battle, getting in by a vote of 58-42.
Under Barack Obama, and in a time of deep political divide, his two nominees were still confirmed with relative ease, Sonia Sotomayor by a vote of 68-31 and Elena Kagan by a vote of 63-37. And did anyone really wonder how these new justices would rule?
It is true that the Republicans stifled Obama’s attempts to appoint Merrick B. Garland to the court. But, as mentioned, that has happened before during election years when the White House and the Senate were controlled by different parties.
But, when it comes to overall voting patterns, despite the known liberal proclivities of the Democratic nominees, the Republicans have focused more on the legal suitability of the nominee rather than the ideology of the nominee.
Thus, there is no Republican parallel to the voting tallies for the three justices nominated by President Donald Trump: Gorsuch, 54-45; Kavanaugh, 50-48; Barrett, 52-48.
Neither is there a parallel to the borking of the great legal scholar Robert Bork nor to the vicious attacks and then narrow confirmation of Clarence Thomas.
I’m quite aware that both political parties are flawed and that the political system itself is marred by greed, lust for power, backroom deals, and corruption.
I’m also sure that different constituents can point to different strengths and weaknesses within each party.
Surely, the Republicans are not all good and the Democrats all evil. Not a chance.
But when it comes to some of the greatest issues of our day, issues that touch on our most fundamental freedoms, on the definition of marriage, and on the sanctity of life, the Democrats have been making their positions clear.
Now, they have spoken with one voice in their unanimous opposition to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. As summed up in the words of “nay” voting Democrat Mazie Hirono, “hell no.”
Let the record, and these words, be remembered for posterity.
And let the record, and these words, be remembered on November 3.
The Democrats have spoken.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books and hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire.
Democrats = Zombies
Well...
Actually, I think that’s become very clear under Trump.
Notice how every democrat berates him. Notice how hardly
any republicons defend him?
It isn’t called the uni-party for nothing.
Or Cranky Walter Cronkite who proudly said he’d gladly sit at the right hand of Satan to usher in a one world government that he’d worked for over 40 years to see formed.
It tells me that the Dem party is a united party to overthrow the United States - the enemy from within. It really should be a minority party and would be if the media didn’t lie for them.
The Left Doesn’t Fear Amy Coney Barrett, It Fears the Constitution!
Townhall.com ^ | October 30, 2020 | David Harsanyi
Posted on 10/30/2020, 6:38:34 AM by Kaslin
Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution. It’s really that simple!
That’s what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation is all about. The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a revenge scheme to pack the Supreme Court — the same people, incidentally, so fond of smear-drenched confirmation hearings — are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous.
For one thing, no norms have been undone by the confirmation of Barrett. If Democrats won a Senate majority in 2016, Merrick Garland would already be ensconced in the Supreme Court, election or no election.
Many of the same Democrats now feigning outrage over Barrett’s confirmation, including Joe Biden, argued back then that it was the constitutional duty of the Senate to take up a vote. Our living constitution apparently offers contradicting directions from one election to the next.
If Trump had nominated Garland to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Democrats wouldn’t have any problem placing him on the Court — not even on Nov. 2. Liberals act as if they are imbued with a theological right to dictate not only the terms but also the nominees, of confirmation hearings whether they win or lose elections.
And when you’re under the impression that the system exists solely to facilitate your partisan agenda, something will seem “broken” every time you lose. When Barack Obama was unable to pass his agenda after 2010, the system suffered from “dysfunction.”
But now that Democrats are in the Senate minority, employing the very same tools to slow the president, we must “fix” the Electoral College, the Senate and, most recently, the Supreme Court.
If Democrats win back the presidency in 2020, the opposition will no longer be “resisting,” it will be “obstructing.” The filibuster will need fixing again. The media will again obsess over the problem of “gridlock.” History’s trajectory arcs left, and everything else is just an impediment.
The left has been relying on the same brand of fear mongering over Republican-appointed judges for nearly 40 years. Ahead of the Barrett vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer claimed this “will go down as one of the darkest days in the 231-year history of the United States Senate.”
For contemporary Democrats, the day the GOP confirmed a wholly capable and highly accomplished woman to the highest Court in the land — using the process prescribed under which every justice in history has been confirmed — is as infamous as the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act or the caning of Charles Sumner.
To be fair, Schumer argued that a resolution against Trump’s removal earlier this year was also “one of the darker moments in Senate history” and also that passage of the watered-down Republican tax-reform passage was “one of the darkest ... days in the long history of this Senate.” So, basically, any time Chuck Schumer loses is the new darkest day in history.
Once Barrett’s confirmation became a reality, however, Democrats began turning to the real problem.
Originalism is the stick in the spoke of progressivism. This crusade has the demagogues leading the idiots. The former are people such as Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, who alleges that “originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic.
Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.” The latter are the minions who regurgitate this kind of vacuous talking point because they lack a basic comprehension of legal philosophies or civic education that includes an explainer on “amendments.”
None of which is to say the radicalized contemporary left has nothing to fear. Yesterday, Schumer warned: “A warming planet. Workers falling behind. Dark money flooding politics. The curtailing of the right to choose. The limiting of voting rights. Those are the consequences of this nomination.”
What he means, of course, is that an originalist-majority Court may slow progressive environmentalist policies that undermine personal freedom and local sovereignty. He means that the Court may make it more difficult for Democrats to adopt policies that compel workers to join and fund unions and chip away at the Janus decision.
He means lawmakers may not be able to continue gnawing at Citizens United and weakening First Amendment protections. He means that unlimited third-trimester abortions on demand and funded by the state might be in trouble, that attacks on religious freedom might be blunted, and that states may be obligated to follow their own laws on Election Day rather than concoct rules as they go along.
Now, I have little doubt that a textualist court will let down partisan Republicans as well. Originalists disagree with one another quite often. But it is unlikely to overturn the traditional role of the state in American life.
None of which means that liberals have to lose, only that to win, they’ll have to do so on the Constitution’s terms. The problem is that many would rather destroy it than do so. That’s what this debate is about. The rest is just noise.
BTTT
Democrats = Stalinists
These are the same Reds who rioted in the streets in the 60s and 70s and carried out THOUSANDS of bombings in the 1970s in America, robbed banks to fund the Weather Underground, plotted political assassinations, etc and promoted those who called for such actions.
50 years they have shown us who they are.
All of it can replotted back to Racism and LBTQ. Once both sides lose their fear of being called a ‘name’ and go back to doing what’s right we will then correct our path.
Only what we already knew.
It means they’re a cult mob. You’re not allowed to step out of line.
They have become evil.
Leftists lack any ethical or moral center. That frees them up to do or say anything with impunity, at least within their own fetid ranks.
“””””If someone tells me they are a democrat today, I deduct
50 IQ points from the get-go.””””””””
If someone tells me they are a democrat today, I always say... I’ll take two Big Macs and an order of large fries, please.
“Does it tell us that the democrats Senators’ constituents oppose Amy?
Is a vote against Amy a vote for a larger cause?
It means that Trump has disrupted the perpetually phony "comity of the Senate" and taken full advantage of Reid's colossal, blessed blunder.
It means Trump's 2nd Term ends the reign of the geriatrics Pelosi, Schlumber, and perhaps the Turtle himself hands off his seat late in 2023 to AG Cameron, by then Gov. Cameron.
Madeleine Albright.
Isn’t she the woman who didn’t know she was a Jew till her senior years? What an ugly POS.
The fifth woman to ever be nominated for the Supreme Court in all of history, a mother and sitting judge, a woman of faith and impeccable morals, and the entire group of depraved dem senators votes against her.
It is disgusting to see the double standard for diversity from these communist scum.
Let me guess: Democrats BAD. Did I get it right?
A much, much better question would be: When only 3 Republicans voted against Ruth Bader Ginsburg, what should that have told you about THEIR convictions and THEIR ideology?
+1
That train left the station in 1937.
They were afraid that she could read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.